". ' . .

fllE COP~

HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION REPORT 72- 19-16

HAZARD EVALUATION SERVICES BRJ.1.NCH

OIV1SION DF TECHtlICAL SERVICES

Establishment: Continental Airlines

Los Angeles, California

Report Prepared By: Melvin T. Okawa Regional Industrial Hygienist Region IX, San Francisco, California

AUGUST 1972

U.S . DEPARTMENT OF HE/\LTH, EO\JCATION, AND WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HE/\LTH

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, ANO WELFARE NATiONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202

HEALTli HAZARD EVALUATION REPORT 72-19-16 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 1972

SUMMARY DETERMINATION

Section 20(a)(6) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 669(a)(6), authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, following a written request by any employer or authorized representative of employees, to determine whether any substance normally found in the place of employment has potentially toxic effects in such concentrations as used or found.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)received such a request from an authorized representative of employees regardi ng exposure to tobacco smoke at the Continental Airlines maintenance building, Los Angeles International Airport.

The complaint from an employee that he was allergic to the tobacco smoke being generated by his co-workers was looked into by NIOSH physicians and industrial hygienists. This problem is resuJting in disputes between the employee, the union, and management. The request was an unusual one but it was decided to investigate the problem even though tobacco smoke has no standard promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor. The physicians tried to determine if the employee was suffering from a true allergic disorder or if the tobacco smoke was irritating some pre-existing respiratory condition . The industrial hygienist surveyed the work site to determine if any known respiratory irritants were being used and noted the overall general ventilation and working conditions. The physicians could not establish that the employee was suffering from a true allergic disorder from tobacco smoke but acknowledged that tobacco smoke could be causing him some irritation. Only minute quantities of chemicals were being used in the reverse thrust repair area of the maintenance building. The work site was large and open to other sections of the building. Make-up air was provided and ventilation did not seem to be a problem. Overcrowding of employees was not a cause of concern in this section of the building. Recommendations were made to management to further define the employee's medical case and for all sides concerned to work out a reasonable solution to this dispute.

Page 2 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report 72-19

Copies of this Summary Determination as well as the Full Report of the evaluation are available from the Hazard Evaluation Services Branch, NIOSH, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 . Copies of both have been sent to:

" a)"Contiriental Airlines~ Los Ange.les, califi>'rnia b) Authorized Representative of Employees c) U~S. Department of Labor - Region IX

For purposes of informing "affected employees 11 , the employer will promptly either (1) 11 post 11 the Summary Determination in a prominent place near where affected employees work for a period of 30 days or (2) provide a copy of the determination to each affected employee.

Page 3 - Health Hazard Evaluati on Report 72-19

I. INTRODUCTION

Section 20(a)(6) of the Occup~tional Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 699(a)(6), authori zes the Secretary of Health, Education, and \Je1far e r following a writtQn r 0quest by any em

.. __ --.. ~-' . . _ploy.er _ or authori zed r erresentabve of emp1 oyees, to det errni ne ~wheth~r an_y-suhsti nce n6h:1a1Ty' foi.fnd fn the --plcrce of employm~nt has potentially toxic effects in such concent 1ations as uscl-:e ) of this evaluation. Hundreds of individuc1 corqiound s have been iso)ated in tobacco s1wke, but they are fo und on1y in trace amounts. Some of these co;r;pounds rr.oy have st,,11dards.

B. Toxic Effects

Many questions r-er.1a in unans':1::-:r ed about t he subj ect of toba.cco sr.10ke and hea1th , but it is generally agreed upon by the r.iedical profession that sroking of cigarett es increases the ri~;k of 1ung cancer and cardiovascu lar disease. Cigarette smoke is also an ir-ritant whi ch can tri ggcr symptoms consistent ~d th upper respiratory disorders . At the present time, there is so~~ evidence that links tobacco smoke and the development of a true anergic disorder. Ho~ever, much of the work is inconclusive and further research is needed.

I I I. HEALTH HAZf1RD EVf\lllf\Tl ON

Representatives from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health were not certain how to re:;pond to the health hazard evaluation requ~st concerning tobacco smoke because it did not seem to come under the "substance" category alluded to in Section 20(a)(6) of the Act. However, it was dec1ded to visit

. .

Page 4 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report 72-19

the Continenta1 A ir11nes ma fotenancc fu.cil 1 ty to detennine if tcbncco smoke \ ..:as accur~ul o.t i ng unnecessarily 1n a confined v:otk area or if so~e other substance was being used whi ch might be the cause of t he er.1ployee 1 s complaint of upper 1espira tory d1s

......... -- -- . _ .,.. tre-ss... . - --- ~-~-- .. -- 1.-- . ..1- . ... - "'-' - -----.. - . . .._

In early f1 pr'il of this year, t\i;-o NIOSH physkians, Ors . Walter J . Fbn~t:an and Peter S. Hen::-i tt, intl!rvi c,:::::d the af fected enployce-and the Medical Director of Continental Airlines, Or. I. Thair findings and conclusions ~~ni b:1 outlined below.

On June 1, 1972, NIOSH representative Mel vin T. Okawa sur veyed the \'Wrk site to det~nnine if any known respiratory ir~ r ite:nts were being used in the area. Mr. ; _ , Dfr c.c t or of Safety, t~r . , t he

I

Page 5 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report 72-19

had rul ed out the co:rmn potential all ergens and the patient had

noted focreased sy::iptcms when around tobcco smoke. A di agncsi s

of "a11ergic rhinitis and pharyngitis secondar y to tobacco s.:-:ke11

was ~~ de and Hr. '. ~as instructed to take Chl ortr1meton

. ( ch1orpheiii saf.1foe n;aTea re; ~~t\ri- antnii~:t~;;it'?re ) as m-:td'ett -to d;::-r.rease syr::ptoris .. Fe;- 1most h:P yE.ars nm1, he has been taking 8 m11iigrar:s ( r.~g) of C:'iortrirr:0t on every h~{) hours \-thil e at ~o'!"k or 'in anothc~r s~i0ky cnviron:-:.e.nt . (This is a rather hi gh dosc;ge , o.s t.h-e tranufoctvrer recc~~-:iend s tc; king 8 rr.g at no more frequent i nt(;'f'i'~:l s than 8 hours; cr.Hi:>equent1y, the probabi1 ity of si gnificClnt s 'lck~ effcct s--viz., sedation--is greatly i ncreased ).

On March 7, 1972 , Mr. .- _ 1 personal physician wrote u. lettQr to Conti nental Airlines asking that Mr . . 1 be trins ferrC>d to a wori: caea w:1ere smoking is proh1bite

Page 6 - Health Hazard Evaluation Repor.t 72-19

The p;Jtentia1 solution of prohibiting smoking only in Mr. irrt:H.~dii

We can readily empo.thi7. r~ with r-k. ~and would li ke to sc~ a solution four.d for his p1ight. Unless management and labor take the initiative to di scournge smok i ng--eHher by persuasion, pr0hi bi tion, or segregation of s~mkers, Mr. and others who share his discomfort may have to boar with it. We are at an i mpas~e; it is beyond our power under the law to ef fect a job transfer or to compel Mr. co-~~rk~s to discontinue sr.oking. The logical ans1.-;~r remains 'In finding understanding, enlightenl!d minds on both sidc~ s of the laboi-management fence; He \:;:ould hope that such an effort will eventuate in a job transfer to a non-smoki ng area for this earnest young man.

Surrrnary:

There was no evidence that known respiratory irritants ~~re

http:aut!.orhttp:irrt:H.~dii

Page 7 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report 72-19

accumul"ting in the 't:ork area resulting in Mr. respiratory cor.d iti c;n. The reverse thrust repair area was open to

other section of the plant and t here seemed to be adequate air

.mo.velfl~nt f or th~. preva n i r19 v;orki ng conditions. The use of toxic cof.1pouncis ~:d s 1imited in fhi s sectiorC of the mai ntenance building .

The findi ngs ar.d conclusions of the HIOSH physicians, Ors.

Herl'fitt t.nd Finnegan were discussed in dr~ta il above. They admit

that tob~cco sr:~oke i s undoubtedly irritati ng to Mr. \ but

conclude t hat t here is ~ l ack of evidenca that he is suffering

from a true allergic disorder . They feel that efforts should b~

made to relocate f.;r.

A recent U.S. Public Hea l t h Service publication , "The Heal t h Consc:que:nces of Smoki ng - A Report of tll~ Surgeon General : 1972, 11 contai ns a chapter on tobacco smoke and allergic di sordc-~rs. It wa s conch1ded t ha t t ob,,cco sr.ia ke can contribute to the di scomfort of many indi vidua ls. it exert$ compl ex ph:t rr.;acologic, irritative , and a11 erg ic effect~ . The c i inic~l mani fest ations of each of t hese conditi ons 1~ny be indist ingui shable fror;i one another. It was also edd~;nt t hil t raanv ~-tudies v~re inconclusi ve and that mor e wor k is needed in this a~ea .

Thi:!r e is no si ngle t est or observation that can be used t o deterrnim.~ \:hetr;er a.n individual is suffer-Ing f rom a true a11ergi c disordor fro~ a sub::.tan::e. Hrn:t:?ver, fu1 fi 11 mant of t he follovJi ng criteria constitutes good evidence that an allergic disorder exist